obama birth certificate: eligibility and natural born still uncomfortable politics for some

[Steve_McGarrett]

Skylar
The original United States Naturalization Law of March 26, 1790 (1 Stat. 103) provided the first rules to be followed by the United States in the granting of national citizenship. This law limited naturalization to immigrants who were free white persons of good character. It thus excluded American Indians,indentured servants, slaves, free blacks, and Asians.

 

[Steve_McGarrett]

As a true Article 2 Section 1 natural born Citizen born with sole allegiance to America, I find this disturbing. What is the problem? As a true White American, I would feel prideful to type out our distinct European heritage English language with dignity. You must realize an American patriot named David Duke, who champions to keep our founders original intent alive, does. Scott, there is nothing better than using proper American sentence structure.

What possible relevance does being a 'white american' have with any issue being discussed, stormfront?

Learn to capitalize 'American'. Usually a communist doesn't appreciate doing that due to having no allegiance to America. You out yourself again!

 

[Skylar]

Skylar
The original United States Naturalization Law of March 26, 1790 (1 Stat. 103) provided the first rules to be followed by the United States in the granting of national citizenship. This law limited naturalization to immigrants who were free white persons of good character. It thus excluded American Indians,indentured servants, slaves, free blacks, and Asians.

And I ask again, what does race have to do with eligibility to be president?

And why do I have to ask this question over and over? If your argument had merit, wouldn't you be *eager* to answer it?

 

[Steve_McGarrett]

Skylar
The original United States Naturalization Law of March 26, 1790 (1 Stat. 103) provided the first rules to be followed by the United States in the granting of national citizenship. This law limited naturalization to immigrants who were free white persons of good character. It thus excluded American Indians,indentured servants, slaves, free blacks, and Asians.

And I ask again, what does race have to do with eligibility to be president?

And why do I have to ask this question over and over? If your argument had merit, wouldn't you be *eager* to answer it?

Because our founders brought the 'White' race up in the Naturalization Act of 1790. That's who they wanted to immigrate here. Lol, why do you think that was?

 

[Skylar]

Skylar
The original United States Naturalization Law of March 26, 1790 (1 Stat. 103) provided the first rules to be followed by the United States in the granting of national citizenship. This law limited naturalization to immigrants who were free white persons of good character. It thus excluded American Indians,indentured servants, slaves, free blacks, and Asians.

And I ask again, what does race have to do with eligibility to be president?

And why do I have to ask this question over and over? If your argument had merit, wouldn't you be *eager* to answer it?

Because our founders brought the 'White' race up in the Naturalization Act of 1790? Why do you think that was?

If you have an argument to make, make it. You're evading for a reason; you know you can't back up your 'white race' bullshit as it relates to presidential eligibility.

For the fourth time: what relevance does race have with presidential eligibility?

And by all means, be specific. You're twirling in the wind is getting rather obvious.

 

[Steve_McGarrett]

Skylar
The original United States Naturalization Law of March 26, 1790 (1 Stat. 103) provided the first rules to be followed by the United States in the granting of national citizenship. This law limited naturalization to immigrants who were free white persons of good character. It thus excluded American Indians,indentured servants, slaves, free blacks, and Asians.

And I ask again, what does race have to do with eligibility to be president?

And why do I have to ask this question over and over? If your argument had merit, wouldn't you be *eager* to answer it?

Because our founders brought the 'White' race up in the Naturalization Act of 1790? Why do you think that was?

If you have an argument to make, make it. You're evading for a reason; you know you can't back up your 'white race' bullshit as it relates to presidential eligibility.

For the fourth time: what relevance does race have with presidential eligibility?

And by all means, be specific. You're twirling in the wind is getting rather obvious.

No argument, why did the 1st Congress feel relevant to want only the race of 'White' people as immigrants in the 1790 Act? It can't be a more specific question than that.

 

[Skylar]

Skylar
The original United States Naturalization Law of March 26, 1790 (1 Stat. 103) provided the first rules to be followed by the United States in the granting of national citizenship. This law limited naturalization to immigrants who were free white persons of good character. It thus excluded American Indians,indentured servants, slaves, free blacks, and Asians.

And I ask again, what does race have to do with eligibility to be president?

And why do I have to ask this question over and over? If your argument had merit, wouldn't you be *eager* to answer it?

Because our founders brought the 'White' race up in the Naturalization Act of 1790? Why do you think that was?

If you have an argument to make, make it. You're evading for a reason; you know you can't back up your 'white race' bullshit as it relates to presidential eligibility.

For the fourth time: what relevance does race have with presidential eligibility?

And by all means, be specific. You're twirling in the wind is getting rather obvious.

No argument, why did the 1st Congress feel relevant to want only the race of 'White' people as immigrants in the 1790 Act? It can't be a more specific question than that.

If you have no race based argument regarding presidential eligibility then your babble on race is irrelevant to what is being discussed.

Which brings us back to what I said before: when you're ready to post something relevant, I'll be around.

 

[Steve_McGarrett]

Skylar
The original United States Naturalization Law of March 26, 1790 (1 Stat. 103) provided the first rules to be followed by the United States in the granting of national citizenship. This law limited naturalization to immigrants who were free white persons of good character. It thus excluded American Indians,indentured servants, slaves, free blacks, and Asians.

And I ask again, what does race have to do with eligibility to be president?

And why do I have to ask this question over and over? If your argument had merit, wouldn't you be *eager* to answer it?

Because our founders brought the 'White' race up in the Naturalization Act of 1790? Why do you think that was?

If you have an argument to make, make it. You're evading for a reason; you know you can't back up your 'white race' bullshit as it relates to presidential eligibility.

For the fourth time: what relevance does race have with presidential eligibility?

And by all means, be specific. You're twirling in the wind is getting rather obvious.

No argument, why did the 1st Congress feel relevant to want only the race of 'White' people as immigrants in the 1790 Act? It can't be a more specific question than that.

If you have no race based argument regarding presidential eligibility then your babble on race is irrelevant to what is being discussed.

Which brings us back to what I said before: when you're ready to post something relevant, I'll be around.

Ok answer this my sensitive politically correct friend. Do you think the first congress ignored race when it came to selecting an American president?

 

[Skylar]

And I ask again, what does race have to do with eligibility to be president?

And why do I have to ask this question over and over? If your argument had merit, wouldn't you be *eager* to answer it?

Because our founders brought the 'White' race up in the Naturalization Act of 1790? Why do you think that was?

If you have an argument to make, make it. You're evading for a reason; you know you can't back up your 'white race' bullshit as it relates to presidential eligibility.

For the fourth time: what relevance does race have with presidential eligibility?

And by all means, be specific. You're twirling in the wind is getting rather obvious.

No argument, why did the 1st Congress feel relevant to want only the race of 'White' people as immigrants in the 1790 Act? It can't be a more specific question than that.

If you have no race based argument regarding presidential eligibility then your babble on race is irrelevant to what is being discussed.

Which brings us back to what I said before: when you're ready to post something relevant, I'll be around.

Ok answer this my sensitive political correct friend. Do you think the first congress ignored race when it came to selecting an American president?

If you want to start a thread about race based shit even YOU admit has no relevance to this thread, do so. But I'm not interested in your red herrings.

I'm discussing presidential eligibility. You're not.

 

[Steve_McGarrett]

Because our founders brought the 'White' race up in the Naturalization Act of 1790? Why do you think that was?

If you have an argument to make, make it. You're evading for a reason; you know you can't back up your 'white race' bullshit as it relates to presidential eligibility.

For the fourth time: what relevance does race have with presidential eligibility?

And by all means, be specific. You're twirling in the wind is getting rather obvious.

No argument, why did the 1st Congress feel relevant to want only the race of 'White' people as immigrants in the 1790 Act? It can't be a more specific question than that.

If you have no race based argument regarding presidential eligibility then your babble on race is irrelevant to what is being discussed.

Which brings us back to what I said before: when you're ready to post something relevant, I'll be around.

Ok answer this my sensitive political correct friend. Do you think the first congress ignored race when it came to selecting an American president?

If you want to start a thread about race based shit even YOU admit has no relevance to this thread, do so. But I'm not interested in your red herrings.

I'm discussing presidential eligibility. You're not.

It's not a damned red herring. Stop dodging the facts here. Do you think the founders original INTENT was to have a president for America that was non-White AND why do you think the 1st Congress wanted ONLY White people for the Naturalization Act of 1790? Also just where most likely would those 'White' people of 'good character' come from? Why from good stock in White European dominated countries. That's where. Why would they have wanted White people of ONLY good character SKYLAR? I'll tell you SKYLAR, one answer, superior intellect to get a new country off to a great new prosperous start. Doesn't that make you feel so prideful and exceptional to know they wanted the absolute BEST for future generations in the beginning. GOD was truly on their side as well as the Aryan 'White' race they wanted this truly beautiful country for. You see SKYLAR, our country has truly fallen from grace from our blessed founders original intent, especially with the election of that non-natural born creature as president in 2008.

 

[Skylar]

If you have an argument to make, make it. You're evading for a reason; you know you can't back up your 'white race' bullshit as it relates to presidential eligibility.

For the fourth time: what relevance does race have with presidential eligibility?

And by all means, be specific. You're twirling in the wind is getting rather obvious.

No argument, why did the 1st Congress feel relevant to want only the race of 'White' people as immigrants in the 1790 Act? It can't be a more specific question than that.

If you have no race based argument regarding presidential eligibility then your babble on race is irrelevant to what is being discussed.

Which brings us back to what I said before: when you're ready to post something relevant, I'll be around.

Ok answer this my sensitive political correct friend. Do you think the first congress ignored race when it came to selecting an American president?

If you want to start a thread about race based shit even YOU admit has no relevance to this thread, do so. But I'm not interested in your red herrings.

I'm discussing presidential eligibility. You're not.

It's not a damned red herring.

Then make your argument: what relevance does race have with presidential eligibility?

I've only asked you this question 5 times. And you've told me you have no argument. Making your inane babble about race pristinely irrelevant to presidential eligibility by your own admission.

Try again. This time with something relevant to what we're discussing. Your StormFont, white supremacist bullshit isn't.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Presidential eligibility has nothing to do with race or sex.

 

[washamericom]

No argument, why did the 1st Congress feel relevant to want only the race of 'White' people as immigrants in the 1790 Act? It can't be a more specific question than that.

If you have no race based argument regarding presidential eligibility then your babble on race is irrelevant to what is being discussed.

Which brings us back to what I said before: when you're ready to post something relevant, I'll be around.

Ok answer this my sensitive political correct friend. Do you think the first congress ignored race when it came to selecting an American president?

If you want to start a thread about race based shit even YOU admit has no relevance to this thread, do so. But I'm not interested in your red herrings.

I'm discussing presidential eligibility. You're not.

It's not a damned red herring.

Then make your argument: what relevance does race have with presidential eligibility?

I've only asked you this question 5 times. And you've told me you have no argument. Making your inane babble about race pristinely irrelevant to presidential eligibility by your own admission.

Try again. This time with something relevant to what we're discussing. Your StormFont, white supremacist bullshit isn't.

i don't know skylar, i suppose it's different for everyone.. i can tell you what condoleza rice said, one of my all time favorite quotes: "if you look at someone and they they ought to think a certain way because of their race, then you are the on with the race problem". i love that.

legally of course there is no distinction for race religion etc. so it's more abstract. only natural born with a grandfather clause.

i think at this point in our history, race baiting is as prevalent as i've ever seen it. al sharpten etc.
i have encountered tons of it as a birther. so you tell me. jake's comment is: "Presidential eligibility has nothing to to with race or sex." which is true, we don't add or subtract for race, religion, creed, sex, sexuality... etc.

it's a good question that's slightly off topic. maybe you meant what "requirements", relevance gives it a different perspective, in a perfect world it wouldn't matter, legaly we have a responsibility to make sure it points toward pure constitution.

 

[JakeStarkey]

All far right race baiters use Sharpton as their excuse.

 

[washamericom]

wash, you are delusional.

They are all eligible.

perhaps they are/will be. but it's going to come up no matter what. when they run out of other things to attack each other for. hillary can be a birther in two elections.

 

[washamericom]

As a true Article 2 Section 1 natural born Citizen born with sole allegiance to America, I find this disturbing. What is the problem? As a true White American, I would feel prideful to type out our distinct European heritage English language with dignity. You must realize an American patriot named David Duke, who champions to keep our founders original intent alive, does. Scott, there is nothing better than using proper American sentence structure.

What possible relevance does being a 'white american' have with any issue being discussed, stormfront?

Are you prideful of your race? Well?

Is pride in one's race the basis of presidential eligibility?

.

Being an White American, you damned right! Now answer my whole post presented to you.

So nothing whatsoever to do with eligibility to be president. No one gives a shit about your white supremacist bullshit, stormfront.

And you've clearly got nothing to contribute on the presidential eligibility front. When you have something relevant to say, I'll be about.

about what skylar ? did you look at my original post ?

this is why people think you are angry, agresive, and over the top. this thread will get along fine without you.

or, why don't you rephrase the question, then write out what you would like me to say. like a race baiting movie script.

 

[washamericom]

All far right race baiters use Sharpton as their excuse.

excuse for what ? sharpten does what he does, it's a free country. he's a little better than the westboro church.

 

[washamericom]

As a true Article 2 Section 1 natural born Citizen born with sole allegiance to America, I find this disturbing. What is the problem? As a true White American, I would feel prideful to type out our distinct European heritage English language with dignity. You must realize an American patriot named David Duke, who champions to keep our founders original intent alive, does. Scott, there is nothing better than using proper American sentence structure.

What possible relevance does being a 'white american' have with any issue being discussed, stormfront?

it just occured to me you are conversing with magarret... sorry, he doesn't appear on my board at all. thanks for reminding me why. i knew i wasn't a white supremicist. that's where the messageboard gets a little confusing, but better this way.

 

[washamericom]

i like the daily caller:

Birthers And 2016 Republican Primaries The Daily Caller

should the supreme court take a whack at defining the undefinable ??

Undefined is not undefinable. And precedent strongly favors a 'place of birth' definition. I'd argue under current law, all our current candidates are eligible.

As our law recognizes only citizens at birth (natural born) and citizens after birth (naturalized).

With the lone exception of those born in Puerto Rico....who are bizarrely 'naturalized at birth'. But since no candidate is Puerto Rico born, its irrelevant to this election.

that's where we disagree, on precednt. there is no precedent. that's the argument.

Because our founders brought the 'White' race up in the Naturalization Act of 1790? Why do you think that was?

If you have an argument to make, make it. You're evading for a reason; you know you can't back up your 'white race' bullshit as it relates to presidential eligibility.

For the fourth time: what relevance does race have with presidential eligibility?

And by all means, be specific. You're twirling in the wind is getting rather obvious.

No argument, why did the 1st Congress feel relevant to want only the race of 'White' people as immigrants in the 1790 Act? It can't be a more specific question than that.

If you have no race based argument regarding presidential eligibility then your babble on race is irrelevant to what is being discussed.

Which brings us back to what I said before: when you're ready to post something relevant, I'll be around.

Ok answer this my sensitive political correct friend. Do you think the first congress ignored race when it came to selecting an American president?

If you want to start a thread about race based shit even YOU admit has no relevance to this thread, do so. But I'm not interested in your red herrings.

I'm discussing presidential eligibility. You're not.

now you just sound angry because you can't hijack my nice thread. the obots circle like vultures. come back when you calm down, or go be a black cloud on someone else's thread.

 

[JakeStarkey]

All far right race baiters use Sharpton as their excuse.

excuse for what ? sharpten does what he does, it's a free country. he's a little better than the westboro church.

You prove my point.